|
Pro-dopaminergic intervention. vs placebo in depressed patients with
symptoms of anhedonia
|
N=6, n=2079; random effects: SMD= -0.24, 95%CI: -0.46, -0.03, I2=68%,
t2=0.025
|
Moderate risk: 50% of the studies had an overall high risk of bias (due
to missing outcome data, and issues with outcome measurement and
selective reporting of findings. 50% of studies had a moderate risk of
bias.)
|
Moderate risk: all studies were rated at least some concerns in RoB2
domain 5, selection of results. The impact of the bias on the magnitude
and direction of the effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is unclear.
|
Moderate risk: 80% of the studies measured the same intervention,
bupropion.For outcomes. 50% of studies measured anhedonia using the MEI,
30% using the MADRS anhedonia item and 20% using the IDS-IVR-30/IDS-C-30
Pleasure Scale No other clear indication of indirectness in terms of
population, interventions, and outcomes.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo in improving anxiety
|
N=11, n=3517; random effects: SMD=-0.17, 95%CI: -0.24, -0.09, I2=0%, t2
<0.001
|
Moderate risk: 60% of studies were rated moderate risk of bias while 10%
were rated as high risk of bias. This was primarily due to domain 2-
deviation from intended interventions.
|
Moderate risk: 60% of studies were rated moderate risk in domain 5 of
RoB2. The impact of the bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects is unclear.
|
Moderate risk: 70% of studies contributing to the analysis tested
bupropion
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Acceptability of pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=50, n=9159; Random effects: OR=0.91, 95%CI: 0.73, 1.14, I2=72%
t2=0.334
|
Low risk: 10% of studies had an overall high risk of bias, primarily due
to concerns over outcome measurement, while 32% were rated moderate risk
of bias.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included utilised a variety of interventions used in
differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Constipation reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=19, n=4809; random effects: OR=1.55, 95%CI: 1.25, 1.93, I2=0%
t2=<.001
|
Low risk: 79% of studies were rated as low risk of bias and no studies
were rated high risk of bias.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included in the analysis utilised a variety of
interventions used in differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Dizziness reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=22, n=5460, random effects OR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.32, 2.24, I2=26% t2=0.08
|
Low risk: 59% of studies were rated low risk of bias and only 5% were
rated high risk of bias.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included in the analysis utilised a variety of
interventions used in differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Dry mouth reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=24, n=6299, random effects OR=2.12, 95%CI: 1.68, 2.67, I2=36% t2=0.08
|
Low risk: 75% of studies were rated low risk of bias for RoB2 while only
4% were rated high risk of bias.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included in the analysis utilised a variety of
interventions used in differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Headache reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=26, n=6518, random effects, OR=1.16, 95%CI: 1.03, 1.31, I2=0%
t2=<0.001
|
Low risk: 62% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 27% were
rated as moderate risk with scores of ‘some concerns’ spread out across
domains in no clear pattern.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included in the analysis utilised a variety of
interventions used in differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Nausea reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=24, n=6480, random effects OR=1.46, 95%CI: 1.18, 1.78, I2=27% t2=0.06
|
Low risk: 71% of studies were rated low risk for RoB2 while 21% were
rated moderate.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included in the analysis utilised a variety of
interventions used in differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases
|
|
Insomnia reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=22, n=5866, random effects OR=1.80, 95%CI: 1.43, 2.25, I2=5% t2=0.03
|
Low risk: 68% of studies were rated as low risk for RoB2 while 28% were
rated as moderate risk.
|
Low risk: the impact of bias on the magnitude and direction of the
effects of pro-dopaminergic agonists is low.
|
Low risk: studies included in the analysis utilised a variety of
interventions used in differing populations in a range of settings.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|
|
Vomiting reported for pro-dopaminergic interventions vs placebo
|
N=5, n=962, random effects OR=1.89, 95%CI: 0.90, 4.00, I2=2%
t2<0.001
|
Moderate risk: 80% of studies were rated as moderate risk and 20% as
high risk due to concerns in RoB2 domains 3 (missing outcome data) and 4
(measuring the outcome)
|
Moderate risk: the impact of the bias on the magnitude and direction of
the effects of pro-dopaminergic interventions is unclear.
|
Moderate risk: only 5 studies contributed to the analysis with a
relatively small number of participants. A variety of interventions were
tested.
|
No clear indication of other biases.
|